Should the Recession Factor in to Divorce Settlement
Payments?

The Lee County man has appealed a judge’s decision originating from his
divorce all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court, contending that
his wife should not receive the initial value of his three retirement accounts
in an environment of financial meltdown that has caused those
accounts—originally worth an estimated $759,000—to greatly reduce their worth
today.

The couple decided to file for divorce in 2004, but
Leggette contends that the value of his retirement funds has been so impacted
by the national recession that he should not still remain accountable for the
initial value, according to court documents and reported by J.D. Sumner of the
Albany Herald.

Leggette also seeks to
have a trial judge’s ruling awarding $60,000 in attorney's fees to his ex-wife
be overturned.

Susan Leggette and her divorce attorneys contend that she is
entitled to the worth of the funds at the time of the initial divorce decree. The Georgia Supreme court is
scheduled to hear the case next week.

According to court documents, a jury awarded a divorce to
the couple in December of 2004. The
final judgment did not arrive until 2006.

At that time, a judge ordered Lester Leggette to provide Susan Leggette
to give his ex-wife 40% of the value of three retirement accounts, funds
for their children's education and $28,000 in legal expenses.

Leggette first appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court in
October 2008. The court upheld the
ruling of the trial court with one exception. It ruled that any award of attorney's fees needed to be justified in
writing by the court.

Earlier in 2009, the trial court held a hearing and produced
a four-page order that detailed the basis for the attorney’s fees awarded to
Susan Leggette and increasing the amount to $60,000 following the intervening
legal expenses. The court also found
Lester Leggette in contempt for not paying appropriate amounts toward his
children's education fund and charged him interest for the ongoing delay.

According to court officials, "Susan Leggette argues the
state Supreme Court should uphold the trial court's rulings, which it did
before with the exception of the attorney fees. He may have chosen to appeal—twice—but losing his appeal does not change
the date she legally owned the funds and she shouldn't have to suffer any
losses that occurred while he appealed."

That decision could have Lester Leggette feeling even more
of a pinch than that brought on by the recession alone.

By the same token, Susan Leggette may be one
of very few Americans who see their portfolio hold steady throughout an
economic crisis.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.